project_get

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already indicate a safe, read-only operation. The description adds the return format ('markdown brief'), which is useful since there is no output schema. However, it does not disclose behavior on missing slugs or other edge cases.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single, front-loaded sentence with zero filler. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's action, resource, and input method.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple get-by-slug operation with strong annotations, the description is sufficiently complete. It communicates the purpose and return format, though a note on not-found behavior would be a minor improvement.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema covers 100% of parameter documentation, including the slug pattern. The description's 'by slug' reinforces the parameter but does not add new semantics beyond what the schema provides.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the verb 'Get', the resource 'markdown brief for one practice project', and the method 'by slug'. It distinguishes this tool from siblings like projects_list by focusing on a single project's brief.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The phrase 'by slug' implies that the user must already have a specific project slug, providing clear usage context. It does not explicitly mention alternatives like projects_list, but the prerequisite is evident.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.